System and interface for electronic communication generation and tracking

ABSTRACT

Various systems and methods are disclosed for enabling a consumer&#39;s creation of a communication (e.g., letter, e-mail) addressed to a provider of goods and/or services. Manually and/or automatically by providing access to one or more existing data repositories, the user completes a software-presented questionnaire, and responses are used by the system to customize and populate a templated form. The form identifies, elaborates and, in some cases, quantifies problems with the provider&#39;s performance. The system focuses on form letters by consumers to businesses, thereby increasing its depth while avoiding unnecessary complexity. Some embodiments also (at the user&#39;s instruction) submit portions of the communication to third parties (e.g., regulatory agencies), track delivery of the communication, and provide background information relating consumer communications with businesses. Some embodiments are tailored to requirements of providers for selected correspondence (e.g., a “notice of dispute” telecommunications providers purport to require before allowing contractual right to arbitration).

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S.Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/152,099 entitled “SYSTEM AND METHODSFOR AUTOMATED PROBLEM RESOLUTION,” filed on Apr. 24, 2015, which isincorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains materialthat is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has noobjection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent documentor the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and TrademarkOffice patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyrightrights whatsoever.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

It is inevitable that consumers and businesses break promises to eachother. When it is the consumer who breaks a promise, the business—arepeat player with economies of scale—may hire a collection agency orlaw firm (also repeat players with economies of scale) to hound theconsumer. When it is the business that breaks a promise, the consumermay hire a lawyer, if the promise is sufficiently valuable to justifythe cost of the lawyer. Affordability of legal services is a global andnational problem, limiting consumers' ability to effectively resolvedisputes. Thus, for instance, only approximately 1 in 4,000,000 AT&Tcustomers takes it to arbitration—even though their customer agreementbars them from going to court instead.

Lacking legal representation, the consumer may proceed pro se. However,consumers are not prepared to interpret agreements, which are heavilyslanted in favor of businesses that drafted them. The result is that, asa practical matter, consumers have often lack a means to insist thateveryday promises be kept. For example, telecommunications consumersface steep disadvantages. While eighty-four percent of U.S. householdssubscribe to pay TV, sixty two percent of consumers have only one mainchoice of cable provider. This market power, and the high capital andregulatory barriers to entry, allows the incumbents to remain profitabledespite persistently low customer satisfaction. Thus, there is a widely-and long-felt need amongst consumers to remedy the service problems theyexperience, for example, with telecommunications companies.

Various conventional approaches exist that attempt to resolve consumerneeds for assisted dispute resolution. For example, U.S. Publication No.WO2006017496 A3 to Rule discloses a method and system for designingonline alternative dispute resolution processes. In the field ofgovernment filings and litigation, U.S. Pat. No. 7,035,830 to Shaikhdiscloses an electronic filing system operated by a governmental agencythat accepts the electronic filing of certain documents as if thefilings were done in person. U.S. Pat. No. 6,694,315 to Grow disclosesan online document assembly and docketing system useful for legalproceedings. Websites such as nCourt.com allow consumers (among others)to file small claims lawsuits online.

In another field, two new companies use human advocates to seekfavorable resolution of individual disputes. In particular, AirHelpapparently gathers data from air travelers on their flights, finds thoseflights in databases of delayed and cancelled flights, compares thedelay and cancellation data to statutory thresholds (especially in theE.U.) beyond which compensation is mandated, and attempts to obtain onthe traveler's behalf the compensation to which she is entitled. Theother company, Fixed, helps recipients of parking tickets. The ticketeddriver uploads photographs of his car and the ticket to Fixed, whichattempts to fight the ticket on the driver's behalf.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is realized that the conventional approaches available to the averageconsumer are insufficient to meet the consumer needs. Stated broadly,various aspects of the present invention allow a consumer to draft aletter or communication addressed to a provider of goods and/or servicesand efficiently seek redress. In some embodiments, the consumercompletes a software-presented survey, and the survey responses are usedby the system to customize and populate a templated form letterdetailing, for example, a dispute, a request, and generally relevantlegal background information (e.g., the user's agreement, consumerprotection law, etc.). According to one embodiment, a dispute managementsystem is configured to dynamically tailor one or more user interfacespresented and information requested to a consumer's needs. Each input inthe tailored interfaces can be configured to trigger additionalselections and/or refinements in the information request by the system(e.g., present new user interfaces to request further user input), untilfurther refinement or selection is unnecessary. In some examples, thedynamic selection of survey questions is executed automatically by thesystem and identifies specific questions and associated tailored userinterfaces from a pool of possible choices to improve the efficiency andaccuracy of the dispute management system.

According to one embodiment, the survey executed by the system allowsthe user to identify and quantify problems with the provider'sperformance. In one example, the system focuses on automated creation ofform letters or electronic communications that can be communicated fromconsumers to businesses, thereby improving the consumer's analysis ofissues, and further allows the targeted recitation of problems to avoidunnecessary complexity. Unlike some conventional approaches (e.g.,generalized dispute resolution providers who bring offline ADRframeworks online), some embodiments are configured for the efficientand reliable production of a specifically tailored document orelectronic communication (e.g., a user-personalized form letter orelectronic communication sent by a consumer to a business from which shebuys goods or services, describing problems with the business'sperformance and requesting remediation thereof). The system can befurther configured to track the communication (e.g., via courier APIs orelectronic message tracking).

Some embodiments of the system are also configured (for example, at theuser's selection within a user interface) to submit portions of adispute letter or electronic communications to third parties, such asregulatory agencies. In further embodiments, the system provides userinterface displays for generation and submission of a complaint to aregulatory agency and tracks delivery of, for example, the letter (e.g.,via first class mail, express mail, e-mail, fax, courier APIs, etc.) oran electronic communication (e.g., via read receipt execution and returntracking). In some implementations, the system is further configured toeducate a consumer on dispute resolution, legal obligations implicatedby consumer disputes, and/or regulatory obligations implicated byconsumer disputes, and may also provide timely general backgroundinformation relating to how consumers use dispute letters to businesses.

According to another embodiment, the dispute management system isconfigured to satisfy the requirements of some businesses for somecorrespondence, or other documentation of a dispute. For example, thesystem is configured to generate a “notice of dispute” that can bephysical or can be an electronic object for communication. The systemenables consumers to satisfy, for example, telecommunications providersthat require a dispute notice as a condition precedent to the consumer'sinvoking his contractual right to arbitration. In some examples, thesystem can analyze a dispute to identify a provider and specificcontractual pre-requisites to obtain a resolution. In one example, thesystem can automatically obtain provider contracts, terms of use, or anyother recitation of consumer obligation. The system can further extractelements from the contracts, terms of use, and/or other recitations todetermine general consumer obligations and configure a dispute sessionto meet those general obligations as part of a managed disputeresolution. In further embodiments, the system can be configured todevelop specific provider requirements through user definition andassociation of any such requirements to the provider in a datarepository (e.g., a provider or requirements database).

In one example, the system automatically captures dispute informationfrom a provider's website to automatically identify requirements forreporting and requesting resolution of disputes. In another example, thesystem includes APIs configured to capture contact information, terms ofuse, requirements for reporting problems, escalation channels, etc. Inanother the system can also automatically capture information from priorsubmissions. In yet other embodiments, web-based searches of publicallyaccessible information can identify disputes and resolutions used byother consumers and incorporate such disputes and any identifiedresolution as prior submissions to be mined for formatting, wording,contact information, etc. In some examples, the system can include APIsconfigured to executed web-based searches for disputes and resolutions(e.g., positive outcomes and associated information can be used totailor formatting towards (e.g., include similar wording, valuation ofdispute, etc.), and negative outcomes and associated information can beused to tailor formatting away from (e.g., remove similar wording,reduce valuation of dispute, etc.)).

In further embodiments, both a consumer and a provider can be users ofthe dispute management system. Each can access the system via theirrespective online accounts (for example, after registering with thesystem) and both users can input outcome information—such as the fact ofthe successful resolution of the dispute. The system can be configuredto store specific information regarding any dispute, associate thatinformation with outcome information, and create an outcome database. Inone example, the outcome database can be indexed according to facts thattriggered a specific dispute, contractual obligations of the parties inthe dispute, applicable regulation, and jurisdictional requirementsassociated with the dispute, among other examples (as well as anycombination of the forgoing). The indexes of dispute information canalso be associated with specific outcomes. According to one embodiment,the indexes of dispute information coupled with the outcome informationenables the system to further customize the system generated templatesfor future use, both automatically and via human analysis andintervention.

It is realized that such automated learning approaches applied todispute resolution solves the long-felt need that practitioners,academics and policymakers have identified regarding the disadvantagethat consumers suffer as one-shot, unsophisticated players in theirinteractions with large businesses. The system's and/or systemsoftware's perpetually refining data model and tailored executionpresents an unprecedented opportunity to help level the playing field indispute resolution. In further embodiments, the refining data modelenables the system to improve performance and precision over knownsystems. In some examples, the dynamic selection of survey informationand template customization reduces processing and/or memoryrequirements.

Further, the system may maintain information and statistics for variousdisputes and resolutions that can be anonymized and used for otherusers. For instance, success rates, recovery amounts, and otherstatistical information may be collected from multiple users andprovided to other users within a user interface. Further, a collectionof dispute information relating to a particular type of dispute may bestored and improved over time, by the collective use by users.

According to another aspect, various embodiments meet the widely andlong-felt need for a fast and cost-effective solution for the pro seconsumer to correspond with a service provider in a sufficiently clearand formal way to cause the provider to take the consumer's concernsseriously. Whereas consumers routinely report spending hours on thephone addressing such problems, with mixed results, some embodimentsallow the user to create and send a 15-page letter in 5 minutes—lessthan a tenth the time it would take using conventional methods.

Various embodiments of the dispute management system are configured forparticipation and monitoring of active disputes (as opposed to creatingstatic documents—e.g., wills, trusts, or articles of incorporation). Thesystem can be configured to actively manage and dynamically adjust toinformation provided in a dispute resolution exchange. In furtherexamples, the system can also be customized to particular counterparties(as opposed to being generic with respect to the identity of theparties). In some implementations, the dispute management system isconfigured to facilitate calculation of the refund amount that theconsumer deems to be fair, or, in further embodiments, likely to berecoverable from the provider. In some embodiments, the systemempirically estimates fair value responsive to entry of disputeinformation and allows the user to edit the completed document.

According to one aspect, a system is provided. The system comprises atleast one processor operatively connected to a memory, the at least oneprocessor when running is configured to execute a plurality of systemcomponents, wherein the plurality of system components comprise aninteractive user interface component configured to display disputeinformation requests, display generation of a dispute communication inassociation with entry of responses to the dispute information requests,a generation component configured to select a template associated with abusiness identified in user responses to the dispute informationrequests, and a transformation component configured to transform userinput received in response to the dispute information requests intotemplate field entries, the transformation component further configuredto identify and execute transformation rules on the user inputresponsive to the identified business or identified dispute to generatethe template field entries, and wherein the generation component isfurther configured to generate a dispute communication object from theselected template and the template field entries and output the disputecommunication object.

According to one aspect a system is provided, wherein the systemcomprises at least one processor operatively connected to a memory, theat least one processor when running is configured to execute a pluralityof system components, wherein the plurality of system componentscomprise: an interactive user interface component configured to: displaydispute information requests; display generation of a disputecommunication in association with entry of responses to the disputeinformation requests, a generation component configured to select atleast one template associated with a business identified in userresponses to the dispute information requests, and a transformationcomponent configured to transform user input received in response to thedispute information requests into template field entries, thetransformation component further configured to identify and executetransformation rules on the user input responsive to the identifiedbusiness or identified dispute to generate the template field entries,wherein the transformation component is configured to: map a first userinput field into a first template field, wherein the first user inputfield specifies a problem type associated with the dispute, map a seconduser input field into a second template field, wherein the second userinput field specifies a problem classified within the problem type,wherein the generation component is further configured to generate adispute communication object from the selected template and the templatefield entries and output the dispute communication object, wherein thegeneration component is further configured to: generate the disputecommunication object to include electronic messaging fields associatedwith an electronic messaging application, and trigger communication ofthe communication object to the business identified in the userresponses.

According to one aspect a system is provided, wherein the systemcomprises at least one processor operatively connected to a memory, theat least one processor when running is configured to execute a pluralityof system components, wherein the plurality of system componentscomprise: an interactive user interface component configured to: displaydispute information requests; display generation of a disputecommunication in association with entry of responses to the disputeinformation requests, a generation component configured to select atleast one template associated with a business identified in userresponses to the dispute information requests, and a transformationcomponent configured to transform user input received in response to thedispute information requests into template field entries, thetransformation component further configured to identify and executetransformation rules on the user input responsive to the identifiedbusiness or identified dispute to generate the template field entries,wherein the transformation component is configured to execute a firstapplication programming interface (API) configured to: map a first userinput field into a first template field, wherein the first user inputfield specifies a problem type associated with the dispute, map a seconduser input field into a second template field, wherein the second userinput field specifies a problem classified within the problem type,wherein the generation component is further configured to generate adispute communication object from the selected template and the templatefield entries and output the dispute communication object, wherein thegeneration component is further configured to execute a second API togenerate the dispute communication object, wherein the second API isconfigured to: generate the dispute communication object to includeelectronic messaging fields for an electronic messaging application, andtrigger communication of the communication object to the businessidentified in the user responses.

Any of the preceding systems can be modified as described in the followembodiments. According to one embodiment, the plurality of systemcomponents further comprises a communication component configured toanalyze the user input received in response to the dispute informationrequests to determine communication requirements for the disputecommunication object. According to one embodiment, the communicationcomponent is further configured to generate a physical letter responsiveto determining that the communication requirements specify physicalmailing. According to one embodiment, the communication componentidentifies a class of dispute based on analysis of the user input thatincludes an unfair or deceptive business practices complaint, andgenerates the physical letter responsive to determining that thecommunication requirements derived from generally applicable law and/orcontract provisions.

According to one embodiment, the communication component is configuredto identify the applicable requirement responsive to analyzing the userinput received to identify one of or combinations of a user location, adispute location, or a business location. According to one embodiment,the communication component is configured to capture communicationrequirements for each match on the user location, dispute location, orthe business location and select either a most stringent set ofrequirements from the matches or create a merge set of requirements thatmeets the requirements of each match. According to one embodiment, theinteractive user interface component is configured to display a surveyto the user. According to one embodiment, the interactive user interfacecomponent selects questions to present to the user in the survey, andthe selected questions include at least a request for identification ofa business provider.

According to one embodiment, the interactive user interface component isconfigured to display suggested categories associated with commonproblems that describe the user's dispute. According to one embodiment,the interactive user interface component dynamically selects or refinesthe suggested categories displayed responsive to matching user input tothe dispute information requests. According to one embodiment, thegeneration component generates the dispute communication object as atleast an electronic letter to the identified business. According to oneembodiment, the generation component validates that the electronicletter meets the requirements specified by the identified business forparticular types of correspondence (e.g., dispute notices) solicitedfrom the consumer by the provider. According to one embodiment, thesuggested category includes a “notice of dispute” or similar category,and responsive to selection of the “notice of dispute” or similarcategory the system executes a provider rule specifying, at least, theprovider condition and validates compliance with the provider rule.

According to one embodiment, the industry of the provider istelecommunications (or “telecom”) and the substance and process of thesoftware-implemented system are accordingly tailored (e.g., byidentifying the leading telecom service providers, identifying thecommon problems in telecom, bucketing those problems into appropriatetelecom categories or “departments,” tailoring the mechanics of therefund calculator to the pricing models of, and sorts of complaintsobserved in, the telecom industry, styling the letter as a “notice ofdispute,” with components specified by some telecom providers, and/ormailing the letter U.S.P.S. certified mail). According to oneembodiment, the system generates a physical letter for mailing through apostal delivery service (e.g., U.S.P.S. or other registered mail orcourier service), and the system automatically monitors transit ordelivery of the physical letter. According to one embodiment, thecommunication component includes at least one application programminginterface (API) configured to access online tracking services of thepostal delivery service and validate delivery.

According to some embodiments any preceding component can be configuredfor persistently tracking dispute information and updating communicationand/or resolution modelling of disputes, communication parameters, andoutcome. According to one embodiment, the system further comprises amodelling component configured to automatically execute analysis (e.g.,statistical analysis, regression analysis, etc.) of outcome or successmetrics, and generate models of dispute behavior or models of disputeoutcomes. According to one embodiment, the modelling component analyzesa current user's dispute information, matches the dispute information toa communication model (e.g., models of communication objects, forcontent, context, fact, regulation references, and legal references thatcan be used to automatically refine the communication object) or outcomemodel (e.g., positive or negative outcomes based on facts, context,content of communication object, etc.).

According to one embodiment, the modelling component identifies outcomes(e.g. positive outcomes such as refund offers made by the provider, freeservice, cancelled contract, etc., and negative outcomes such as refusedsubmission, denied request, additional charges, etc.) and models eachoutcome as a function of independent factors (e.g., problems exposed tothe user in the survey, identified problem categories, identifiedbusiness, identified facts, format of the communication, references tolaw (e.g., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §349, etc.)). According to one embodiment,the modelling component dynamically selects or refines template formats(e.g., adds or removes facts, based on associations with positive ornegative outcomes, automatically editing the communication objectresponsive to length-based modelling of outcomes). According to oneembodiment, the interactive user interface requests information on abusiness (e.g., category of business, market sector of business, etc.)and generates lists of candidate providers for display and selection bythe user. According to one embodiment, the interactive user interfaceaccepts free text input associated with the business. According to oneembodiment, the system automatically validates the free text input ofthe business (e.g., confirms business information with third partyinformation sources, executes online searching to confirm, etc.), andresponsive to validation, creates a listing object for future selectionin a drop down listing of candidate providers.

According to one embodiment, the system automatically sorts problemsinto department categories (e.g., goods, services, billing, customerservice, etc.). According to one embodiment, the system is configured todynamically refine user options displayed responsive to the user'sselection of the relevant departments, wherein problems bucketedexclusively into irrelevant departments are suppressed. According to oneembodiment, the system is further configured to model outcomes based onthe selected department categories (e.g., limit modelling to dataobtained on matching or similar categories) and compare with unrefinedoutcome models.

According to one embodiment, the system is configured to select aproblem presentation and tailor the communication object accordinglythat yields an improved outcome probability responsive to thecomparison. According to one embodiment, the interactive user interfaceis configured to progressively display to the user the informationneeded to identify the problems and respond to the system selectedinformation requests. According to one embodiment, the interfaceincludes graphical user interface elements that adhere to design bestpractices, such as “progressive disclosure” (e.g., large and bold-facedfont is applied to a concise “name” for the problem, while lessprominent but proximate “help text” clarifies the concept in a shortsentence, and the final communication object fleshes out the problem inone or more sentences, paragraphs or subdivisions). According to oneembodiment, the system is configured to automatically identify userproblems, responsive to enabling system access to information sources(e.g., third party e-mail accounts, business accounts, a databasecontaining relevant information or an account with the provider, etc.).

According to one embodiment, the system further comprises a valuationcomponent which can include an automated wizard that guides the userthrough a calculation of value associated with the dispute (e.g., howmuch she deems appropriate for the business to refund as a result of theproblems identified). According to one embodiment, the valuationcomponent calculates the value for a requested refund by taking theproduct of one or more of the following user-entered data points: (1) arecurring dollar amount; (2) a percentage of that amount (or, asappropriate, one minus that percentage); and (3) the number of periodsof recurrence. According to one embodiment, the valuation component isconfigured to model a range of value for the dispute, and further modela probability of a positive outcome based on value points within therange of value. According to one embodiment, the system automaticallyselects the value associated with the greatest probability of a positiveoutcome, or, alternatively, the greatest expected value (e.g., on aprobability-weighted basis). According to one embodiment, the systemdisplays the range of value and each associated probability of apositive outcome.

According to one embodiment, the system is configured to check templateentries for consistency and prompt the user for confirmation of apparentinconsistencies or edit template entries automatically to forceconsistency. According to one embodiment, the valuation componentcalculates and displays a running total refund request while the user isprogressing through a series of input-capturing interfaces. According toone embodiment, the valuation component generates a model of valuedynamically responsive to user input of dispute information, and furtherupdates the model of value at each data entry. According to oneembodiment, the system includes free text displays for accepting theuser's elaboration or description of the problems complained of, andwherein the system captures and transcribes the user's narrativeverbatim. According to one embodiment, the user's narrative isautomatically analyzed in real time as she types and the system providesher real-time feedback on the length, substance and/or style of hercomposition.

According to one embodiment, the system is configured to accept userupload of documentation of the problems she has identified. According toone embodiment, the system is configured to accept user specification ofan online source of dispute information, including any credentialsrequired to access it. According to one embodiment, the notice ofdispute consists of a preamble with the user's account information,followed by three substantive parts, the first factual, the secondlegal, and the third precatory. According to one embodiment, a systemdefined template specifies that (1) the first part includes (i) a briefbackground on the particular provider, how it represents itself, itshistory, its business operations and its customer service track record;(ii) recitation of the problems the user has selected and elements ofthe calculations the user has performed regarding them, incorporatedinto the text as complete grammatical sentences; and (iii) the user'sexplanation of the problems in her own words; (2) the second partincludes a static, citation-driven summary of causes of action that aconsumer may bring against his service provider or a list of causes ofaction automatically mapped to problems identified by the user; and (3)the third part begins with a static, citation-driven summary of doctrineconcerning liability and damages and concludes by explaining andaggregating the user's calculations of what she feels would amount to afair refund.

According to one embodiment, the second and third parts are customizedto the user's jurisdiction and/or the provider's industry. According toone embodiment, the system is configured to enable the user to edit thegenerated communication object (e.g., letter) before it is finalized.According to one embodiment, the user may electronically sign thefinished letter. According to one embodiment, the system is configuredto deliver the communication object or at least part of thecommunication object to one or more relevant regulatory agenciesresponsive to user selection in the interactive user interface Accordingto one embodiment, the user pays a flat fee for the use of the software.According to one embodiment, the user pays a fee that is a function ofthe user's refund request, or the provider's refund offer, or the amountthat the user actually receives from the provider, or the amount theuser is subsequently awarded by a court or arbitrator. According to oneembodiment, after the expiration of the period of time prescribed bystatute or by the contract associated with the identified business, thesystem automatically notifies the user, provides relevant generalinformation to the user, and asks the user to update her account toreflect key developments in her situation, including any offer made bythe provider and her acceptance thereof. According to one embodiment, amoney-back guarantee is available to users who fail to receive a refundfrom their provider above a particular threshold-such as the purchaseprice or license fee to access the system.

According to another aspect, a computer implemented method is providedfor executing the functions of any individual system element describedabove, and in further embodiments, in any combination of any function ofany individual system element described above are provided. According toanother aspect means for executing the functions of any individualsystem element described above, and in further embodiments, in anycombination of any function of any individual system element describedabove are provided.

According to another aspect a computer implemented method is provided.The method comprises displaying, in a user interface, disputeinformation requests, displaying, in a user interface. generation of adispute communication in association with entry of responses to thedispute information requests, selecting, by a computer system, atemplate associated with a business identified in user responses to thedispute information requests, and transforming, by the computer system,user input received in response to the dispute information requests intotemplate field entries, wherein transforming includes acts ofidentifying and executing transformation rules on the user inputresponsive to the identified business or identified dispute to generatethe template field entries; and generating, by the computer system, adispute communication object from the selected template and the templatefield entries and output the dispute communication object.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises analyzing theuser input received in response to the dispute information requests, anddetermining communication requirements for the dispute communicationobject. According to one embodiment, the method further comprisesgenerating a physical letter responsive to determining that thecommunication requirements specify physical mailing. According to oneembodiment, the method further comprises identifying a class of disputebased on analysis of the user input that includes an unfair or deceptivebusiness practices complaint, and generates the physical letterresponsive to determining that the communication requirements derivedfrom generally applicable law and/or contract provisions. According toone embodiment, the method further comprises identifying the applicablerequirement responsive to analyzing the user input received to identifyone of or combinations of a user location, a dispute location, or abusiness location.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises capturingcommunication requirements for each match on the user location, disputelocation, or the business location and select a most stringent set ofrequirements from the matches or create a merge set of requirements thatmeets the requirements of each match. According to one embodiment, themethod further comprises displaying a questionnaire to the user.According to one embodiment, the method further comprises selectingquestions to present to the user in the questionnaire, and the selectedquestions include at least a request for identification of a businessprovider. According to one embodiment, the method further comprisesdisplaying suggested categories associated with common problems thatdescribe the user's dispute. According to one embodiment, the methodfurther comprises dynamically selecting or refines the suggestedcategories displayed responsive to matching user input to the disputeinformation requests.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises generating thedispute communication object as at least an electronic letter to theidentified business. According to one embodiment, the method furthercomprises validating that the electronic letter meets the requirementsspecified by the identified business for particular types ofcorrespondence (e.g., dispute notices) solicited from the consumer bythe provider. According to one embodiment, the suggested categoryincludes a “notice of dispute” or similar category, and the methodfurther comprises responsive to selection of the “notice of dispute” orsimilar category executing a provider rule specifying, at least, theprovider condition and validates compliance with the provider rule.

According to one embodiment, wherein the industry of the provider istelecommunications and the substance and process of thesoftware-implemented system are accordingly tailored (e.g., byidentifying the leading telecom service providers, identifying thecommon problems in telecom, bucketing those problems into appropriatetelecom departments, tailoring the mechanics of the refund calculator tothe pricing models of, and sorts of complaints observed in, the telecomindustry, styling the letter as a “notice of dispute,” with componentsspecified by some telecom providers, and/or mailing the letter U.S.P.S.certified mail). According to one embodiment, the method furthercomprises generating a physical letter for mailing through a postaldelivery service (e.g., U.S.P.S. or other registered mail or courierservice), and automatically monitoring transit or delivery of thephysical letter.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises executing atleast one application programming interface (API) configured to accessonline tracking services of the postal delivery service and validatedelivery. According to one embodiment, the method further comprisespersistently tracking dispute information and updating communicationand/or resolution modelling of disputes, communication parameters, andoutcome. According to one embodiment, the method further comprisesautomatically executing analysis (e.g., statistical analysis, regressionanalysis, etc.) of outcome or success metrics, and generate models ofdispute behavior or models of dispute outcomes. According to oneembodiment, the method further comprises analyzing a current user'sdispute information, matches the dispute information to a communicationmodel (e.g., models of communication objects, for content, context,fact, regulation references, and legal references that can be used toautomatically refine the communication object) or outcome model (e.g.,positive or negative outcomes based on facts, context, content ofcommunication object, etc.).

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises identifyingoutcomes (e.g. positive outcomes such as refund offers made by theprovider, free service, cancelled contract, etc., and negative outcomessuch as refused submission, denied request, additional charges, etc.)and models each outcome as a function of independent factors (e.g.,problems exposed to the user in the questionnaire, identified problemcategories, identified business, identified facts, format of thecommunication, references to law (e.g., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §349, etc.)).According to one embodiment, the method further comprises dynamicallyselecting or refining template formats (e.g., adds or removes facts,based on associations with positive or negative outcomes, automaticallyediting the communication object responsive to length-based modelling ofoutcome). According to one embodiment, the method further comprisesrequesting information on a business (e.g., category of business, marketsector of business, etc.) and generates lists of candidate providers fordisplay and selection by the user. According to one embodiment, themethod further comprises accepting free text input associated with thebusiness.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises automaticallyvalidating the free text input of the business (e.g., confirms businessinformation with third party information sources, executes onlinesearching to confirm, etc.), and responsive to validation, creates alisting object for future selection in a drop down listing of candidateproviders. According to one embodiment, the method further comprisesautomatically sorting problems into department categories (e.g., goods,services, billing, customer service, etc.). According to one embodiment,the method further comprises dynamically refining user options displayedresponsive to the user's selection of the relevant departments, whereinproblems bucketed exclusively into irrelevant departments aresuppressed.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises modellingoutcomes based on the selected department categories (e.g., limitmodelling to data obtained on matching or similar categories) andcompare with unrefined outcome models. According to one embodiment, themethod further comprises selecting a problem presentation and tailorsthe communication object accordingly to yield an improved outcomeprobability responsive to the comparison. According to one embodiment,the method further comprises progressively displaying to the user theinformation needed to identify the problems and respond to the systemselected information requests.

According to one embodiment, the interface includes graphical userinterface elements that adhere to design best practices, such as“progressive disclosure” (e.g., large and bold-faced font is applied toa concise “name” for the problem, while less prominent but proximate“help text” clarifies the concept in a short sentence, and the finalcommunication object fleshes out the problem in one or more sentences orparagraphs). According to one embodiment, the method further comprisesautomatically identifying user problems, responsive to enabling systemaccess to information sources (e.g., third party e-mail accounts,business accounts, a database containing relevant information or anaccount with the provider, etc.). According to one embodiment, themethod further comprises guiding the user through a calculation of valueassociated with the dispute (e.g., how much she deems appropriate forthe business to refund as a result of the problems identified),optionally via an automated wizard. According to one embodiment, themethod further comprises calculating the value for a requested refund bytaking the product of one or more of the following user-entered datapoints: (1) a recurring dollar amount; (2) a percentage of that amount(or, as appropriate, one minus that percentage); and (3) the number ofperiods of recurrence.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises modelling arange of value for the dispute, and further modelling a probability of apositive outcome based on value points within the range of value.According to one embodiment, the method further comprises automaticallyselecting the value associated with the greatest probability of apositive outcome, or, alternatively, the greatest expected value (e.g.,on a probability-weighted basis). According to one embodiment, themethod further comprises displaying the range of value and eachassociated probability of a positive outcome. According to oneembodiment, the method further comprises checking template entries forconsistency and prompts the user for confirmation of apparentinconsistencies or edits template entries automatically to forceconsistency.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises calculatingand displaying a running total refund request while the user isprogressing through the survey. According to one embodiment, the methodfurther comprises generating a model of value dynamically responsive touser input of dispute information, and further updates the model ofvalue at each data entry. According to one embodiment, the methodincludes free text displays for accepting the user's elaboration ordescription of the problems complained of, and capturing andtranscribing the user's narrative verbatim.

According to one embodiment, the user's narrative is automaticallyanalyzed in real time as she types and the system provides her real-timefeedback on the length, substance and/or style of her composition.According to one embodiment, the method further comprises accepting userupload of documentation of the problems she has identified. According toone embodiment, the method further comprises accepting userspecification of an online source of dispute information, including anycredentials required to access it. According to one embodiment, thenotice of dispute consists of a preamble with the user's accountinformation, followed by three substantive parts, the first factual, thesecond legal, and the third precatory.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises specifying viaa template that (1) the first part includes (i) a brief background onthe particular provider, how it represents itself, its history, itsbusiness operations and its customer service track record; (ii)recitation of the problems the user has selected and elements of thecalculations the user has performed regarding them, incorporated intothe text as complete grammatical sentences; and (iii) the user'sexplanation of the problems in her own words; (2) the second partincludes a static, citation-driven summary of causes of action that aconsumer may bring against his service provider or a list of causes ofaction automatically mapped to problems identified by the user; and (3)the third part begins with a static, citation-driven summary of doctrineconcerning liability and damages and concludes by explaining andaggregating the user's calculations of what she feels would amount to afair refund.

According to one embodiment, the second and third parts are customizedto the user's jurisdiction and/or the provider's industry. According toone embodiment, the method further comprises enabling the user to editthe generated communication object (e.g., letter) before it isfinalized. According to one embodiment, the method further compriseselectronically signing the finished letter. According to one embodiment,the method further comprises delivering the communication object or atleast part of the communication object to one or more relevantregulatory agencies responsive to user selection in the interactive userinterface. According to one embodiment, the method further comprisespaying a flat fee for the use of the software.

According to one embodiment, the method further comprises paying a feethat is a function of the user's refund request, or the provider'srefund offer, or the amount that the user actually receives from theprovider, or the amount the user is subsequently awarded by a court orarbitrator. According to one embodiment, after the expiration of theperiod of time prescribed by statute or by the contract associated withthe identified business, the method further comprises automaticallynotifying the user, providing relevant general information to the user,and asking the user to update her account to reflect key developments inher situation, including any offer made by the provider and heracceptance thereof. According to one embodiment, a money-back guaranteeis available to users who fail to receive a refund from their providerabove a particular threshold—such as the purchase price or license feeto access the system.

Still other aspects, embodiments and advantages of these exemplaryaspects and embodiments are discussed in detail below. Moreover, it isto be understood that both the foregoing information and the followingdetailed description are merely illustrative examples of various aspectsand embodiments, and are intended to provide an overview or frameworkfor understanding the nature and character of the claimed aspects andembodiments. Any embodiment disclosed herein may be combined with anyother embodiment. References to “an embodiment,” “an example,” “someembodiments,” “some examples,” “an alternate embodiment,” “variousembodiments,” “one embodiment,” “at least one embodiment,” “this andother embodiments” or the like are not necessarily mutually exclusiveand are intended to indicate that a particular feature, structure, orcharacteristic described in connection with the embodiment may beincluded in at least one embodiment. The appearances of such termsherein are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various aspects of at least one embodiment are discussed below withreference to the accompanying figures, which are not intended to bedrawn to scale. Where technical features in the figures, detaileddescription or any claim are followed by reference signs, the referencesigns have been included for the sole purpose of increasing theintelligibility of the figures, detailed description, and claims.Accordingly, neither the reference signs nor their absence are intendedto have any limiting effect on the scope of any claim elements. In thefigures, each identical or nearly identical component that isillustrated in various figures is represented by a like numeral. Forpurposes of clarity, not every component may be labeled in every figure.The figures are provided for the purposes of illustration andexplanation and are not intended as a definition of the limits of theinvention. In the figures:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example schematic according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 2 is an example flow diagram for generating a communication object,according to one embodiment;

FIG. 3 depicts an example data model, according to one embodiment;

FIG. 4 depicts this same data model, emphasizing the set theoreticalfeatures of an embodiment of the data model;

FIG. 5 categorizes certain factors as outcome (i.e., left-hand side or“LHS”) variables and others as independent (i.e., right-hand side or“RHS”) variables previously unavailable for rigorous statisticalanalysis at scale by consumers, according to one embodiment;

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of an example dispute management system,according to one embodiment;

FIG. 7 illustrates example pseudo-code that can be executed by variousembodiments;

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an example computer system according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 9 is an example user interface according to one embodiment;

FIGS. 10A-B are an example user interface according to one embodiment;

FIGS. 11A-D are an example user interface according to one embodiment;

FIG. 12 is an example user interface according to one embodiment;

FIG. 13 is an example user interface according to one embodiment;

FIG. 14 illustrates example pseudo-code that can be executed by variousembodiments; and

FIG. 15 illustrates example pseudo-code that can be executed by variousembodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

According to some embodiments, a dispute management system enables aconsumer to draft a letter addressed and tailored to a provider of goodsand/or services to identify a consumer complaint and request recourse.In one embodiment, a consumer completes a software-presentedquestionnaire, which questionnaire responses are used by the system tocustomize and populate a templated form letter. According to oneembodiment, the dispute management system dynamically tailors thequestionnaire to a consumer's needs. Each response provided to thesystem by the consumer can be configured to trigger additionalselections and/or refinements in the questions presented, until furtherrefinement or selection is unnecessary. In some examples, the dynamicselection of survey questions selects specific questions from a pool ofpossible choices to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the disputemanagement system.

Examples of the methods, devices, and systems discussed herein are notlimited in application to the details of construction and thearrangement of components set forth in the following description orillustrated in the accompanying drawings. The methods and systems arecapable of implementation in other embodiments and of being practiced orof being carried out in various ways. Examples of specificimplementations are provided herein for illustrative purposes only andare not intended to be limiting. In particular, acts, components,elements and features discussed in connection with any one or moreexamples are not intended to be excluded from a similar role in anyother examples.

Also, the phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose ofdescription and should not be regarded as limiting. Any references toexamples, embodiments, components, elements or acts of the systems andmethods herein referred to in the singular may also embrace embodimentsincluding a plurality, and any references in plural to any embodiment,component, element or act herein may also embrace embodiments includingonly a singularity. References in the singular or plural form are notintended to limit the presently disclosed systems or methods, theircomponents, acts, or elements. The use herein of “including,”“comprising,” “having,” “containing,” “involving,” and variationsthereof is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter andequivalents thereof as well as additional items. References to “or” maybe construed as inclusive so that any terms described using “or” mayindicate any of a single, more than one, and all of the described terms.

FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of example architecture of the disputemanagement system. According to one embodiment, the user initiates 100 anew questionnaire in a user interface displayed the user to create a newform letter. The form-letter application logic 102 stores 104user-supplied data in the secure customer database 106, which in turnsupplies data 108 to the application logic 102 executed by the systemfor returning or otherwise known (e.g., registered or guest) users. Asecure database of blank templates 112 supplies the forms to bedynamically customized and injected 110 with user data. The end resultis a completed letter styled 114, in certain embodiments, to anidentified business's specifications. In some embodiments, the letter issent to the business 116 and its delivery is tracked 118 via anAPI-driven fulfillment surveillance routine 120. In further embodiments,the letter is mapped into e-mail communication fields (e.g., recipient,subject, body, attachments, etc.). Read requests can be triggered by APIprocesses (e.g., 120), which can monitor confirmation of receipt and/orreading of the electronic message itself. In one embodiment, the API isconfigured to activate message tracking functions associated with acommercially available e-mail application and/or service (e.g., OUTLOOK,GMAIL, etc.).

In some implementations, the system is configured to request informationfrom both participants. For example, the system automatically requestsoutcome information from both participants. In one example, e-mailrequests are directed to the user and/or to the business regarding anyoutcome for a dispute letter. The outcome information can be stored inan outcome database 122. The outcome data is captured and analyzed bythe system to improve and/or automatically modify (e.g., at 124) theletter templates 112 for future use. In some implementations, the systemautomatically edits letter templates and/or their correspondingquestionnaires responsive to analysis of outcome information (e.g., whenidentified facts within the dispute lead to positive outcomes, thosefacts are exposed more prominently in the survey). In some embodiments,the system can execute queries on historic or tracked outcomeinformation to identify positive results, matching problems and/orcircumstances, and use prior event descriptions to tailor current userinterface displays, and solicit current user information in a same orsimilar format as prior successful interactions. In further embodiments,negative outcomes are tracked in an outcome database. User input can bematched to problems having negative outcomes (e.g., no resolutionprovided or offered), and user descriptions searched for negativeresults. In some examples, the terms that are matched to unresolved orpoorly resolved problems can be identified in the user interface. Thesystem can be configured to suggest different terms or suggest removalof text matching disputes having poor outcomes and may automaticallyreplace or remove terms or wording in the user description to matchdisputes having positive outcomes. In other embodiments, system-basedanalysis can be presented for human-based intervention (e.g., editing oftemplates, acceptance in a user interface display, etc.). In yet otherembodiments, system-based recommendations can be presented for humanuser approval before altering a template.

In other embodiments, an end user can access the system through awebsite (via mobile or non-mobile computing devices), or download anative application containing software to the user's computing device(e.g., mobile phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop computer).

After a user arrives at a home page or landing page explaining thepurpose, benefits and mechanics of the software, the user can begin touse the system and register for it. In some embodiments, a user can begiven access through a guest account. In one example, functionalityprovided through the guest account may be reduced. According to oneembodiment, an introductory or “splash” page clarifies that thesoftware/system is not a lawyer or a replacement for one, and is notsuitable for every communication a user may want to send to a business.In further examples, the system provides notification that the system isnot providing legal advice and requires that the user acknowledge thatany dispute may require legal analysis, which the system and/or softwaredoes not provide or consider. In further examples, the acknowledgementis used by the system as a pre-requisite for access and/or registration.

An example of system execution is illustrated with FIG. 2. FIG. 2 is anexample process for generating a communication object (e.g., a letter(in electronic or physical form)). In some the embodiments, the processbegins with a user's accessing the system via an application or awebpage. The application or webpage can display service providers forselection by a user. In other examples, a user can enter free textinformation about a dispute, and the system can automatically parse thefree text input to suggest providers or dispute categories and/or torefine survey questions presented to the user.

In some embodiments, the home page displays a list of service providersto whom the user may draft a customized form letter 200. For example,the user may select a provider or business from a drop down menu at 200.In another example, the user can identify a business within a free textinput window and the system can present business category information toselect an appropriate template.

The process continues with the user selecting a service provider 202from, for example, a drop down list. In other embodiments, if the user'sservice provider is not listed, the user is redirected to a structuredcontact form for identifying a business or provider. The system can beconfigured to validate and/or approve requests to add business and/orservice providers automatically. For example, the system can access anonline presence associated with the provider, verify the user providedidentifying information, and, in further examples, capture terms of use,terms of service, dispute resolution provisions, etc., made availablethrough the provider's online presence. The system can match the termsof use, or other dispute resolution requirements, to existing templatesand store an association between the new provider and a template form.

In other examples, the system can extract provider requirements from anyterms specified on their respective website and create a templatecustomized for the new provider. In other embodiments, the system canrequire and/or request administrator approval before adding a newbusiness or provider.

After selecting a provider, the process optionally continues at 204 withdisplay and selection of departments within a service provider orbusiness. According to some embodiments, department selection isoptional and in other embodiments, department selection is not executed.Where department selection is executed the department selection can beused by the system to filter candidate problems presented to the user.

According to one embodiment, the process of FIG. 2 is executed inconjunction with the data model show in FIG. 3. In other embodiments,different data models can be used to capture business information anddispute information and create associations with dispute outcomes.Different processes can be used, for example, in conjunction with thebusiness model shown in FIG. 3 and in conjunction with other datamodels. In other embodiments, various steps shown in FIG. 2 can beconsolidated, omitted and/or executed in a different order.

For the purposes of clarity, the following description of the processassumes execution in conjunction with the data model shown in FIG. 3. Insome embodiments, the system can have assigned one or more “departments”non-exclusively to each service provider 302. In one example, the systemcan automatically assign departments. In other examples, administrativeusers create department descriptions or assign department descriptionsto providers and/or businesses. In one embodiment, department assignmentcan include “billing,” “customer support,” and the like. Conceptually,departments 306 are used by the system to organize and displaycategories of problems 308 that a user may encounter with the givenservice provider.

Thus, the system filters at 204 the list of departments down to thoseapplicable to the selected provider and displays a multi-select list ofthe resulting departments. At 206, the user selects as many of thesedepartments as apply to her. In some embodiments, the system isconfigured to move the user through the departments in a logical order.For the first department in that order, the program checks 210 whetherthe user has selected it. If so, the system displays the problemspertaining to that department.

According to some implementations, the problems selected by the systemare pre-defined into groupings of problem reports that have beenselected for inclusion in the given department. The initial definitionof problem reports can be the result of analyzing and categorizinghundreds or thousands of real-world consumer complaints regardingproviders in the provider's industry. The system can produce and/oraccess a histogram of problems to facilitate problem selection (e.g.,based on frequency of complaint, among other parameters). For instance,in the telecommunications industry, top-ranking complaints include slowinternet, broken service appointments and overcharges. In otherembodiments, use of the system by the user population generates, forexample, new problem reports and new providers. The system can beconfigured to automatically associate such new problems with departmentcategories and further incorporate the new problem-departmentdesignations into subsequent displays.

According some embodiments, each problem can be defined on the system asa problem object. In one example, the problem object is defined with aconcise “name” field of just 1 or a few words. The system can beconfigured to displayed the name field in large font to make itefficient for the user to recognize and select it, as well as displayproblem objects with the name and a “description” or help text field,which elaborates in smaller font in case the user is unsure whether theparticular problem applies to her.

For example, one problem object can be defined with the name “Hotpotato” and the description “{{provider}} representatives passed my callaround like a hot potato.” In the descriptive text and embodiment,double curly brackets are used to indicate a system variable that thesystem requests from the user as input into various user interfacedisplays. In some examples, the system can extract the variables fromfree text input and automatically populate the fields based on extractedand/or imported text. In one example, the {{provider}} variable ispopulated by the system with the service provider's name according tothe user's selection at the beginning of the questionnaire. In anotherexample, the system extracts the provider name from free text input andpopulates the template field automatically.

According to one embodiment, after the user is shown the most frequentproblems for the displayed department, the system accepts the user'sselections 212 of all that apply. In some embodiments, some problems areautomatically flagged as potentially applicable to the user after theuser grants the system and/or application access to a databasecontaining problem information, such a user email account or a useraccount with the provider. In some examples, the user can provide usercredentials (e.g., user name and password) and the system canautomatically capture problem information.

The process continues at 214 and 216 with recursive execution througheach department and specification of problem information from withineach applicable department. Once a final department is selected at 218and any problems specified at 220, the process can continue with adetermination of a value of any one or more of the previously selectedproblems.

According to one embodiment, the system includes a “wizard” 222 (e.g.,guided user interface displays configured to walk the user through thecalculation) to help the user calculate how much it would be logical forthe business to refund as a result of the input problems. For eachproblem selected by the user, the wizard provides a sentence with blanksfor the user to populate at 310. The sorts of terms the user populatesinclude the product at issue (in some embodiments, the product can bechosen from a drop-down list populated on a problem-by-problem basisbased on empirical histogram analysis), a dollar amount, a length oftime, and a percentage. Some examples of names of problems and theircorresponding refund calculations include the following:

-   -   1. Broken: “The {{product}} {{provider}} sold me for ${{money}}        doesn't do what {{provider}} promised.”    -   2. Phony discount on smartphone: “{{provider}} failed to        disclose that my bill would be increased ${{money}} per month        for {{time}} months to account for the “discount” on my phone.    -   3. Slow internet: “{{provider}} has only delivered about        {{percent}} % of the speed it promised, while charging me the        full ${{money}} per month for {{time}} months.”

In the example (1) above, the system calculates a refund equal towhatever the user paid for the faulty product, which the user enters asa dollar amount at 224. According to some embodiments, responsive toselection of the provider and the problem, the system dynamicallyselects from potential products and displays menus to the user forselection. In some examples, the user can also indicate that thedisplayed price for the product is not accurate, and input appropriatedata for price.

In the example (2) above, the calculated refund is equal to the numberof months 226 the user has been overbilled times the amount 224 of themonthly overcharge. Each of the two variables the user enters via aseparate interaction. In one embodiment, the system is configured torequest information on the user's problem (e.g., overbilling) andsolicit additional information to obtain the value estimate. Forexample, the calculated refund for example 3 above is equal to one minusthe percentage performance 228 times the number of months 226 thedeficiency persisted times the amount of the monthly bill 224. Each ofthe three variables the user enters via a separate interaction.

In one embodiment, every refund calculation incorporating a percentagealso incorporates a time, and every refund calculation incorporating atime also incorporates a dollar amount. Such an embodiment is depictedin FIG. 4. FIG. 4 is an example data model specified using set-theoreticnotation. As shown in FIG. 4, service providers each have one or moredepartments, departments span problems (i.e., every problem is inexactly one department), and there are three types of refund/valuationcalculations: (1) money; (2) money times time; and (3) money times timetimes a percentage (or one minus a percentage, as applicable).

According to some embodiments, the system and/or the data modelimplemented is configured to constrain the values that the user mayselect for a given variable (e.g., monetary value). For instance, dollaramounts may be constrained to whole dollar amounts (no pennies), andpercentages may be constrained to multiples of 10%. Such constrainedvalues can be displayed to the user in drop down menus for selection.Other embodiments are configured to further limit the constrained valuesto eliminate high and low value calculations in order to simplify userselection. It is realized that overwhelming the user with valuationanalysis can impede dispute resolution.

According to one embodiment, the process continues after the usercompletes a first valuation at 230. The valuation determination stepscan be executed for each problem specified and each valuation stored aspart of a refund calculation 312. For each session including more thanone specified problem the system is configured to tally a cumulativetotal (e.g., data element 314 of FIG. 3) or, if it has already startedtallying such cumulative total, the system increments a tally at 232 bythe newly calculated amount. If the user skips or fails to complete thecalculation for a given problem, the total is not incremented, and anicon notifies the user that she has skipped the given calculation.

In some embodiments, as the user progresses through the wizard, thesystem provides automated positive feedback to the user in one or bothof two ways. First, the system displays a completion icon (such as acheck mark) or the calculated amount next to each problem that the usersuccessfully completes. Second, as noted, the system is configured toshow a running tally 232 of the total refund that the user hascalculated so far.

At 234, the process includes a check for whether there remain problemsfor which the system may calculate a problem valuation (e.g., arequested refund). If so, the process repeats at 222-232, according tothe specification of the next problem. If not, the system displays thetotal requested refund at 236. In some embodiments, the total isdisplayed in proximity to a free text field for specifying disputeinformation (e.g., specific names, dates, locations and dollar amounts,for example, to support the problems the user has selected and justifythe refund amount the user is requesting). According to one embodiment,the system displays instructions in conjunction with the free textdisplay to elicit relevant information. In one example, the free textfield is prepopulated with information from the system's database orprepopulated from the user's earlier survey responses. At 238, the useris prompted to explain what has gone wrong with the service provider. Inone embodiment, the system is configured to transcribe what the userwrites verbatim.

In certain embodiments, the user may upload documentation of herproblems. Examples of such documentation can include scans of bills,screenshots of internet speed tests, recordings of calls and photos ofmobile phones or TV screens, e-mails to customer service, call logs,voicemail recordings, etc.

In certain embodiments, the user then registers for an account or, if healready has one, logs in at 240. In some examples, the system executesone or more of the preceding steps automatically based on analysis ofthe provided documentation. In other embodiments, the user registers orlogs in at a different point in the workflow.

At 242, the user can enter her contact information and the number thatidentifies her account with the provider. If she is not the accountholder, the user can also enter the account holder's information. Invarious embodiments, the main purpose of this information is to allowthe provider to identify the account.

At 244 the system uses the supplied information to populate the formletter template with the information applicable to the particular userand provider. In certain embodiments, this letter is styled a “Notice ofDispute” or “NOD” whereas in other embodiments, the letter may be styledas a paper appropriate for other use cases. In some examples, the systemuses the input information to select a specific template, and then usesthe supplied information to complete data fields within the selectedtemplate. In some embodiments, template selection causes the system todynamically display questions specific to completing the various datafields of the specific template and/or a specific provider.

In certain embodiments, the system is configured to generate acommunication object (e.g., a letter), having multiple parts drawn fromthe user input regarding their dispute. In one example, thecommunication object beings with a preamble containing the user'saccount information. Another example includes the preamble and threeparts: relevant facts, general legal background, and the user's refundrequest.

In one embodiment, the first part of the letter (e.g., the facts)contains:

-   -   1. a brief background on the particular provider, how it        represents itself, its history, its business operations and its        customer service track record;    -   2. a recitation of the problems the user has selected; and    -   3. the user's explanation of the problems in her own words.

In certain embodiments, each problem listed in (2) above is generallyfleshed out beyond its “name” and “description” fields, previouslydescribed. For example, for the problem named “Hot potato”, the “factoutput text” in the NOD is:

-   -   “{{provider}} customer service representatives seem to play a        game of “hot potato” with my phone calls, transferring my call        to representative after representative rather than resolving the        problem we are discussing. {{provider}} representatives have        promised to transfer me to the correct point-of-contact, only to        instead transfer me to the wrong point-of-contact. Often,        {{provider}} leaves me on hold for long periods of time between        these transfers. Cynical as this may sound, I cannot help but        get the impression that {{provider}}'s representatives are more        concerned with getting me off of their plate than actually        resolving the problems with my {{provider}} service.”        Thus, according to some implementations the system and/or a        system administrator can select predefined problems based on        sufficiently specific recurring problems that are readily        identified by the consumer from a concise description and        readily adaptable to template elaboration. In other examples,        the system can be configured to dynamically generate additional        descriptions, responsive to matching a problem type, matching        underlying facts of the problem, and/or matching a provider and        previously used descriptions for that provider.

In certain embodiments, where appropriate, elements of therefund/valuation calculation are also included in the fact output text.For example, the fact output text for the problem “Phony discount onsmartphone” includes the amount by which the monthly bill was increased,and for how many months. Elegant branching is used so that the factoutput text reads cleanly even if the user has failed to complete therefund calculation for the given problem. For example, for

-   -   “Phony discount on smartphone,” the code of the fact output text        is: “{{provider}} induced me to do business with it by promising        a “discounted” smartphone. My “discounted” phone was actually        full-price, spread out across {% if time %} {{time}} {% endif %}        monthly bills{% if money %}, at ${{money}} per month, {% endif        %} so as to be less conspicuous. {{provider}} did not clearly        disclose upfront that it would amortize the rack-rate price of        the phone in this way. To the contrary, it implied that I was        getting a discount.”        Thus, in the example above, if, for instance, the provider is        Wireless Co X, the time selected by the user is 24 months, but        the user has selected no dollar amount, the fact output text        reads cleanly as:    -   “Wireless Co X induced me to do business with it by promising a        “discounted” smartphone. My “discounted” phone was actually        full-price, spread out across 24 monthly bills so as to be less        conspicuous. Wireless Co X did not clearly disclose upfront that        it would amortize the rack-rate price of the phone in this way.        To the contrary, it implied that I was getting a discount.”

According to another embodiment, the second part of the NOD concerns thelaw. In (1) certain embodiments, this second part is a static,citation-driven summary of causes of action that a consumer may bringagainst his service provider. In (2) certain other embodiments, thissecond part may be dynamic, driven by a rule-based mapping of genericfactual patterns to causes of action. For instance, such a mapping cangenerically map a problem of “slow internet” (i.e., internet slower thanadvertised) to a cause of action for “false advertising.” In eitherevent, this second part of the NOD is in certain embodiments customizedto the user's jurisdiction and/or the provider's industry.

In further embodiments, the third part of the NOD, the user's request,begins with a legal background regarding the dispute and any topicsincluding (1) contractual provisions limiting liability and damages, (2)doctrines limiting consumers' ability to recover damages, and (3) othergenerally related consumer protection law. This third part of the NODcan be customized to the user's jurisdiction, the service provider'sindustry, the service provider's location, and/or the location of theperformance of the service.

In one example, the third part shows all completed calculations of whatthe user is requesting to have refunded, reimbursed or compensated. Thethird part of the communication object (e.g., letter or NOD letter)tallies the calculations and provides a total request.

In further examples, the third part concludes with a manifestation ofthe user's electronic signature. In embodiments permitting the user toupload documentation, the documentation can be attached physically orelectronically, such as by way of an appendix or a URL of a websitehosting the documentation.

In certain embodiments, the system is configured to allow the user toreview and edit the NOD, for example, in a rich-text editor at 246. Oncesatisfied, the user electronically signs the communication object (e.g.,the letter, or the more specifically a NOD letter). In some embodiments,the user may state whether or not she wants to submit a complaint withone or more applicable government regulators.

The system is also configured to capture payment information accordingto use of the system. In one example, the user pays using a credit card248. In certain embodiments, the user pays a flat fee. In otherembodiments, the user pays a fee equal to a flat percentage of a refundrequest or of the money actually received from the provider or infurther examples, an eventual court or arbitrator.

According to some implementations, the system is configured to send 250a hard copy and/or an electronic copy of the communication object (e.g.,the generated form letter) to the provider. In certain embodiments, theletter is sent according to the delivery channel specified by theprovider for such letters, e.g., U.S.P.S. Certified Mail. An electroniccopy of the communication object is stored on the system and eachrespective object is available to its user in his account.

If the user requested 252 that a complaint be filed with one or moregovernment regulators, the system completes the applicable submission(s)on the user's behalf 254. In order to accomplish the submissions, thesystem contains a mapping from the fields in the user survey to theclosest-corresponding fields in the complaint template of theregulator(s). In some implementations, the system translates data fromthe template fields into the fields provided by the regulatory agency'sweb-based forms.

In another embodiment, the system automates tracking of delivery at 256.For example, the system can track any communication object generated andcommunicated (e.g., a mailed NOD) to the provider. In one example, thesystem implements APIs to communicate with third party providers tocapture delivery information. The system can then update the user'sonline account upon delivery.

In certain embodiments, for certain providers, the provider's contractwith consumers obligates the customer to report a problem within aperiod of time and can further limit the provider to a fixed period oftime (frequently 30 days) within which to reply to the user's letter. Insome instances, the provider's reply will include a pecuniary offer toresolve the dispute. In some instances, the provider's disputeresolution agreements specify additional payments to the user based onrejection of a proposed settlement offer and later victory atarbitration. For example, if the user rejects the offer but later winsmore than the offered amount in arbitration, the user is contractuallyentitled to a bonus payment (for instance, $5,000 or $10,000). Thus,these providers respond to the user's letter in the shadow of thesebonus payments.

Additionally, for certain complaints to regulators, statutoryrequirements may impose time-based obligations on a provider to respondto the consumer within a fixed period of time (in the case oftelecommunications providers, 30 days), copying the regulator on theresponse. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this requirement may have asalubrious influence on the provider's responsiveness to consumerconcerns.

In certain embodiments, the system identifies an applicable time periodautomatically. In one example, the system is configured to notify theuser at 258 once an applicable time period has expired. In someembodiments, the system is configured to communicate a request to theuser to update his account at the end of such time periods. In otherexamples, the system can periodically request updates on any or keydevelopments 260 in the resolution of the dispute. The development mayinclude any offer made by the provider and any acceptance thereof.

In some embodiments, the system is configured to correlate outcomeinformation (e.g., offers, offer amounts, acceptances, rebates, contactcancellation, and so forth) with independent variables (e.g., whichproblems are displayed, which problems are selected, the user'slocation, the provider, the provider's location, and so forth) thatallow the system to automatically fine-tune outcome models at 262 toprovide increased accuracy and predictability while reducing executionburden based on evolving outcome models.

In some embodiments, further analysis by the system and/or systemadministrators allows less constrained optimization. The richness of thefactors incorporated into this modelling component/engine is reflected,for example, in the selected factors listed in FIG. 5.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of an example dispute management system 600.System 600 can be implemented with one or more system components (e.g.,610-618) and/or implemented via a resolution engine 604 configured toaccept user input 602 (e.g., dispute information, free text, uploadedfiles, uploaded e-mail, business account information, etc.), identify auser problem or dispute from the input 602, identify a template for adispute communication to a provider, and generate a communication object606 (e.g., a letter) to the provider including at least part of the userinput 602 and template information describing the user's dispute andpotential outcome for the provider if a resolution is not reached.

According to some embodiments, the operations and/or functions discussedherein can be implemented in a resolution engine 604. The resolutionengine 604 can instantiate various system components to performedspecialized functions to process user input 602 and generate acommunication object 606 describing the user's problem, a request forresolution, and support for the user's request. In other embodiments,the resolution engine can execute the function alone, and no furthercomponents are necessary.

In one implementation, the engine 604 includes generation component 610configured to select a template associated with a business identified inuser responses to dispute information requests. Various templates forresolving disputes can be stored in databases (e.g., 608) associatedwith the dispute management system. Individual templates can becustomized to a specific provider, particular requirements specified bythe provider, general industries, product lines, etc. The generationcomponent 610 is configured to select a template responsive to userinput describing a problem and/or provider.

In some embodiments, the system 600 and/or engine 604 can include a userinterface component 612. The user interface component is configured tosolicit and/or facilitate entry of information necessary to select atemplate for resolving a dispute. Further, the interface component 612can be configured to solicit information from the user necessary tocomplete template fields in the template.

Depending on the input received, the system and/or engine 604 caninclude a transformation component 614 configured to transform userinput received in response to the dispute information requests intotemplate field entries. In one example, the transformation component isconfigured to identify and execute transformation rules on the userinput responsive to the identified business or identified dispute togenerate the template field entries. In another embodiment, thetransformation component is configured to receive input from the userinterface and input that information into associated template fields.

Once an interactive session with the user is complete (i.e., input forall necessary template fields has been supplied) the generationcomponent can generate a communication object 606 (e.g., a disputeletter). The communication object can be created to follow anyprovider-specified and/or rule-based communication requirements storedon the system (e.g., database 608).

In some examples, the system and/or engine 604 can include acommunication component 616 configured to analyze the user inputreceived in response to the dispute information requests to determinecommunication requirements for the dispute communication object. In someembodiments, the communication component can be a sub-component of thegeneration component 610. In one embodiment, the communication componentis further configured to generate a physical letter responsive to thecommunication requirements, including physical mailing requirements. Inother embodiments, the communication component is configured to identifya class of dispute based on analysis of the user input that includes,for instance, an unfair or deceptive business practices complaint, andgenerates a physical letter responsive to generally applicable law.

In some examples, either the generation component or the communicationcomponent can identify the applicable consumer protection lawrequirement responsive to analyzing the user input received andidentifying one of or combinations of a user location, a disputelocation, or a business location.

According to further embodiments, the user interface component isconfigured to capture information via displays of one or morequestionnaires to the user. The user interface component interactivelyselects questions to present to the user in the questionnaire, and theselected questions include at least a request for identification of abusiness provider. The selected questions can also include request foror suggestion of common problems that describe the user's dispute. Theuser interface component can dynamically select or refine suggestedcategories and/or questions displayed responsive to matching user inputto dispute information requests.

According to one embodiment, the system and/or engine can also include amodelling component 618. The modelling component can be configured tomodel dispute information and enable association of dispute facts to aresolution template. In further embodiments, the modelling component isfurther configured to model outcomes with any one or more, or anycombination of dispute facts, templates, business, dispute category,user, etc. to allow the system to refine any one or more, or anycombination of suggested questions, suggested category, suggestedtemplate and suggested value for the dispute.

In further embodiments, the system and/or engine can also include avaluation component. The valuation component can be configured togenerate a valuation of a user problem responsive to user input. In someembodiments, the valuation can be based on the value of the service, alength of time associated with the disruption, etc. In some embodiments,the valuation component can determine the valuation based on likelihoodof a positive resolution (e.g., the valuation component can useinformation on specific providers to determine a hypothetical valuestatistically likely to be paid by the provider). In furtherembodiments, the valuation component can generate a resolution valuerange and assign relative probabilities to values within the range. Thesystem can then allow the user to select a value and a degree of riskthey are willing to accept. In other implementations, the valuationcomponent can be configured to use provider behavior to modifyvaluations. For example, a provider who tends to offer 50% of a requestcan have its valuations adjusted accordingly. Other behavioralcharacteristics can be determined from the data and feedback loopexecuted by the system. Any of the behavioral characteristics can beused by the system to refine dispute valuations. In the precedingexample, system executed analysis of the provider may determine, forinstance, that the provider offers 50% of a request, where the offer of50% is insensitive to the particular reasoning, facts, etc. The systemis configured to modify the provider's templates to increase the requestamount, in response to such an evaluation. The system can focusevaluations based on problem categories and make determinations onprovider behavior. The behavior model generated by the system for eachprovider and/or each problem category and provider can then be used bythe system to automatically modify associated templates and requestvalues.

Example User Interfaces

FIGS. 9-13 illustrate screen captures of example user interfacesprovided by a dispute system. FIG. 9 is an opening screen 900 that isconfigured to provide users a streamlined approach to creating atrackable communication object with simple and straightforwardselections in the UI, which trigger operations to match a consumer issueto known problems and/or templates based on large volumes or priorrequests and track results associated with those requests.

In some embodiments, the dispute system can target to specificproviders, as well as providing for free text entry of any provider. InFIG. 9, the dispute system displays tailored UIs, where the system istailored to facilitate telecom disputes. Screen 900 displays providerselection options at 902-908 (e.g., AT&T 902, COMCAST 904, TIME WARNER906, and VERIZON 908). If a user is returning, the user is provided theoption to login at 910 to access prior disputes, update disputeinformation, check on dispute resolution, etc. In further embodiments,the system can be configured to track prior inputs even from anonymoususers. In one example, any prior dispute information can be recorded asa cookie on a user's computer. When the user accesses the UI (e.g.,screen 900), the cookie information is captured and used in crafting adispute communication object, for example, through a progression throughthe UIs shown in FIGS. 9-13. In one embodiment, the system can determinethat dispute information has been entered, but not completed, and thescreen 900 can display an indication 912 of a type of claim associatedwith an executable to return the user to a prior data entry point (i.e.,where a user left off in the progression of screens shown in FIGS.9-13). Responsive to selection of 912 the user is directed to whateverUI contained the user's last data entry.

Responsive to selection of any provider (e.g., 902-908), the system isconfigured to retrieve template information associated with the selectedprovider (e.g., via a query against the selected provider on storedtemplate information). In some embodiments, the next user interfaceshown to the user is dynamically generated based on responsiveinformation contained in stored templates. For example, categories ofproblem types can be returned for a given provider and those categoriesused to dynamically build frames in the UI next shown to the user, wherethe ordering of the displayed categories can be determined based onlikelihood of an issue associated with a given provider. For example,phone problems may be the most reported problems for VERIZON, and thusfirst UI portion can display options for common phone problems. Thesystem may determine TV/Internet problems is the next most frequentlyoccurring and display a second portion of the UI for inputting commonTV/Internet problems. In some embodiments, problem category displays canbe dynamically ordered by the system (e.g., based on relative frequency)and shown in respective UIs. In other embodiments, categories andproblems within each category can be ordered (e.g., based on frequencyanalysis) by the system dynamically in the UI.

For example, FIGS. 10A-B show pages of a user interface 1000 that can beaccessed via a conventional browser (e.g., FIREFOX, INTERNET EXPLORER,CHROME, etc.). UI 1000 includes a first portion 1002 of the UI thatdisplays a first problem category associated with the user's priorselection of a provider (e.g., VERIZON). In some embodiments, the firstportion can be displayed as a frame, outlined box, discrete portion ofthe UI, etc. In various embodiments, only the most common problems inretrieved categories associated with the selected provider are shown inthe UI to enable the user to quick and easily process relevantinformation. For example, based on retrieved problem categoriesassociated with VERIZON, UI 1000 display a first category in a firstportion of the UI 1002, a second category in a second portion of the UI1004, a third category in a third portion of the UI 1008, and a fourthcategory in a fourth portion of the UI 1010. As discussed above theproblem categories displayed in each portion can be dynamically orderedby the system for display in any user interface. Thus, the ordering canchange over time, for example, responsive to tracked user submissionsand problem reporting (which can include publically availableinformation captured by the system). Further, the UI screen shown can bedependent on the number of problems associated with a given provider. Asproblem tracking by the system continues over time, new common problemscan be associated with the provider and integrated into the UI. In oneexample, the system monitors a frequency threshold associated withtracked problems, and upon exceeding the frequency threshold elevatesproblem category so that it will be displayed in the UI for resolution.Template language can be generated from tracked problems automatically,as well as drop downs that focus the user on identifying a value thatcan be assigned to the particular problem.

According to another embodiment, each problem category (e.g., shown in1000) can be associated with a display threshold so that only commonproblem categories are shown in the UI. In further embodiments, eachproblem category may also be associated with a problem displaythreshold, such that within each problem category, only the most commonproblems are displayed for visual selection, absent further actions bythe user. Limiting the display of problems to the most common problemswithin each category improves the system's ability to query for userinput across a broader range of issues, and simplifies user selection.According to another aspect, limiting interface displays to the mostcommon problems, limits the volume of information that the system needsto render across a multitude of submitted problems. Over time thesavings in computation and CPU usage, memory resources, and displayoperations provides significant advantage over conventionalimplementation (e.g., in terms of CPU cycles used, memory usage, anddisplay operations). Shown at 1010, 1012, 1014, and 1016 are titles foreach problem category. With each category is shown a visual selection(e.g., 1036) and label for a specific problem in each category (e.g., at1018-1036). According to one embodiment, each individual problem isassociated with a visual selector (e.g., 1036 and 1018) in the UI.Responsive to selection of the visual selector (e.g., 1036) the systemretrieves template information associated with the provider and templatelanguage for describing the associated problem. Further upon selecting asubmit control in the UI (e.g., 1040 “Next”) the system is configured toadvance to a third UI (for example, as discussed in greater detail belowwith respect to FIG. 12). In some embodiments, the templates for eachproblem include one or more fields configured to accept user input, tofacilitate user selections to assign a value to any selected problem.

According to one embodiment, each selection by a user in the second UI1000 is additive in terms of retrieved templates, and results in dynamiccreation of a third UI and associated screens based on user selection,which can cover any number of problems, over any number of problemcategories.

In the event that the user has additional issues or the common problemslisted in each category are not sufficient, each portion of the UIassociated with a problem category (e.g., 1002-1008) includes anexpansion operator (e.g., 1038). The expansion operator is configured totrigger the system to render additional problems (and associated visualselectors for each additional problem) responsive to selection in the UI(e.g., 1000). In one example, responsive to selection of 1038 the UI isconfigured to transition to the view shown in FIG. 11A, UI 1100. Thelisting of common problems shown in UI 1100 displays “Broken” at 1102,“Not Delivered” at 1104, “Faulty software” at 1106, and “Faulty landlineservice” at 1108. As discussed above, the additional problems can beordered based on dynamically determined problem frequency. In furtherembodiments, ordering can also be influenced by public informationsources that identify problems with specific providers (e.g., newsreports on internet outages for Verizon, recalled phones, misleadingadvertising, etc.).

In some embodiments, the system can include an API configured to searchon provider issues and create new problems and/or problem categoriesresponsive to identified issues. In some embodiments, the API caninclude a classifier for identifying a problem category and specificproblem (e.g., by extracting terms from published articles, etc.). Infurther embodiments, the system created problem can be paired with asystem created template (e.g., selected by the system based onsimilarity to existing templates). In yet other embodiments, the systemcreated problems can be given artificial frequency numbers to elevatetheir ordering in a respective list of problems.

As discussed above, each problem is associated with a visual selector inUI 1100 (e.g., at 1110-1116). The visual selectors are configured to seta state for the system, such that in response to selection of Next at1120 the system captures templates associated with each selected problemand current provider. Each portion of the UI can be expanded viaselection of a respective expansion operator (e.g., 1004, 1006, and1008) (except is some examples where only a few problems, or one or twoproblems, exist in a problem category). FIGS. 11A-D show each UI portionin an expanded state. Each expansion operator can also be configured toreturn a respective UI portion to a contracted view in response tofurther selection in the UI.

FIG. 12 illustrates another UI 1200. UI 1200 is configured to displayproblem templates associated with a current provider, responsive tostate selections (e.g., via visual selectors 1036, 1110-1116) in aprevious UI display. Each problem template is configured to display theproblem template as at least a portion of a narrative, wherein theportion of the narrative is incorporated into an electroniccommunication created via the progression of user interface screens andinput requests. For example, the system can retrieve a templateassociated with faulty coverage and display a narrative associated withthe retrieved template with problem element 1202 in UI 1200. In someembodiments, the retrieved template includes one or more user inputportions to enable a user to tailor their dispute (and ultimately afinal communication object for delivery to the provider). At 1204 afirst user input portion is displayed to elicit valuation informationassociated with the user's problem. In some embodiments, the template isconfigured to elicit a payment amount (e.g., at 1204) and a period oftime associated with the problem (e.g., at 1206). Various templates canalso include a drop down selector (e.g., 1208) to elicit aquantification or approximation associated with the user's problem. Inone example, selector 1208 is configured to display a drop down selectorof percentages (e.g., 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65,70, etc.). Various templates include fields for user input of specificamounts, time periods, and percentage outage for problems that haveaffected the service. Other template examples include fields for directuser input on a values associated with their problem and may alsoinclude a reason for the value.

As shown in UI 1200, state selections in prior user interfaces (e.g., UI1100 or UI 1000) control what template selections are made by the systemand the corresponding UI elements shown for user input in 1200. Includedin each UI element (e.g., 1202) shown is a control to delete oreliminate a template selection made in a prior screen (e.g., at 1210).Responsive to selection of 1210, the system eliminates the UI elementand proceeds to generate a communication object for the user with anyremaining elements. In one example, deletion of all the UI elementsshown in 1200, triggers the system to return to a prior screen foridentification of problems the user wishes to specify (e.g., triggersreturn to screen 1000 or 1100). At 1212 shown is another UI elementassociated with a prior identified problem “TV/Internet—Slow internet.”Similar to 1202, the user is requested to provide inputs (e.g., at 1214,1216, and 1218) to control system determination of a value associatedwith the problem. At 1220 shown is another UI element where the user isrequested to enter inputs (e.g., at 1222 and 1124) to control systemdetermination of a value associated with the problem and/or to completea narrative description of the problem. Selection of 1226 or 1228 isconfigured to remove the respective UI element. Once the user hasentered the requested information, the user may select “NEXT” at 1230 toadvance to a complete screen.

Shown in FIG. 13 is a completion screen 1300. Screen 1300 is configuredto finalize a communication object for transmission to the specifiedprovider (e.g., e-mail, physical letter, or both, etc.). In someembodiments, UI 1300 includes API tie-ins to various social media orother “single sign-on” accounts, which enable the user to provideauthentication information for their respective social media account asa means to login and obtain status information on their dispute (e.g.,by selecting 1302). If the user is not the actual account holder with agiven provider additional information can be collected through UI 1300at 1304. Responsive to selection of 1304, additional entry displays willbe shown to collect information on the account holder (e.g., name,account number, etc.). In some embodiments, provider-specificexecutables and/or APIs are triggered by the system to validate provideraccount information (e.g., responsive to selection of 1306). Onceidentifying information has been entered and/or validated, the user canselect “Submit” at 1310. Responsive to selection of the submit controlat 1310, the system is configured to validate user-entered information(e.g., for completeness) and finalize a communication object includingnarrative description of the user's issue, valuation informationdeveloped via user interface entries, and a request directed to theprovider for redress. In further embodiments, the communication objectis sent in response to selection of 1310 and/or validation. Additionalscreens can be presented indicating that a dispute communication wassent and providing reference information to the user. Further optionscan be displayed to enable the user to transmit the communication objectto regulatory agencies responsible for overseeing such disputes. With asingle click the user can identify an agency, and the system cancommunicate the dispute communication to the regulatory agency. In someembodiments, the system retrieves user entered information, narrativeinformation, etc., entered in prior screens and tailors a newcommunication object for the regulatory agency. For example, trackinginformation can also be collected by the system on each regulatorysubmission, and the system can tailor narratives, organization, and/orvaluations based on prior submissions and results.

According to one embodiment, the system includes a modelling componentconfigured to capture, for example, key words from prior disputeinformation, and associate those key words and/or valuation informationwith tracked results. The modelling component can be further configuredto build models associated with successful requests and modify existingtemplates to include common keywords found in disputes having positiveresults (e.g., payment of at least a portion of dispute request). In yetother examples, the modelling component can be configured to searchdisputes that do not have positive outcomes for key words and/orvaluations and associate those keywords with negative models. The systemcan be configured to modify existing templates to exclude commonkeywords found in disputes having negative results.

In further examples, the modelling component can be configured to buildmodels that are based on an amount of a request (in some examples themodel may take into account the value and a period of time) and atracked outcome. Responsive to determining a valuation for a disputefrom user inputs, the system can analyze modelled valuations and resultsto determine if the valuation is likely to result in a positive outcome.In some embodiments, likelihood can be determined for a valuation withina problem category and/or based on a specific problem and/or for aspecific provider so that the system can suggest changes in a particularvaluation with a greater likelihood of a positive result. In oneexample, likelihood can be based on frequency of positive outcomes basedon matching dispute information and valuation. In another example,likelihood can be determined based on similar dispute information andvaluation for a provider. In yet another example, likelihood can beanalyzed across providers.

The modelling component can also be configured to generate trends fromprior disputes and tracking information, and the trends used to directuser-specified problems into areas that are associated with positiveoutcomes.

Referring now to FIG. 8, there is illustrated a block diagram of aspecial purpose distributed computer system 800, in which variousaspects and functions are practiced. As shown, the distributed computersystem 800 includes one or more special purpose computer systems thatexchange information. More specifically, the distributed computer system800 includes specially configured computer systems 802, 804 and 806. Asshown, the computer systems 802, 804 and 806 are interconnected by, andmay exchange data through, a communication network 808. For example,system engines, system components, subsystems, and/or modules can beimplemented on 802, which can communicate with other systems (804-806),which operate together to provide the functions and operations asdiscussed herein.

In some embodiments, the network 808 may include any communicationnetwork through which computer systems may exchange data. To exchangedata using the network 808, the computer systems 802, 804 and 806 andthe network 808 may use various methods, protocols and standards,including, among others, Fibre Channel, Token Ring, Ethernet, WirelessEthernet, Bluetooth, IP, IPV6, TCP/IP, UDP, DTN, HTTP, FTP, SNMP, SMS,MMS, SSB, JSON, SOAP, CORBA, REST and Web Services. To ensure datatransfer is secure, the computer systems 802, 804 and 806 may transmitdata via the network 808 using a variety of security measures including,for example, TLS, SSL or VPN. While the distributed computer system 800illustrates three networked computer systems, the distributed computersystem 800 is not so limited and may include any number of computersystems and computing devices, networked using any medium andcommunication protocol.

As illustrated in FIG. 8, the computer system 802 includes at least oneprocessor 810, a memory 812, a bus 814, an interface 816 and datastorage 818. To implement at least some of the aspects, functions andprocesses disclosed herein, the processor 810 performs a series ofinstructions that result in manipulated data. The processor 810 may beany type of processor, multiprocessor or controller. Some exemplaryprocessors include commercially available processors such as an IntelXeon, Itanium, Core, Celeron, or Pentium processor, an AMD Opteronprocessor, a Sun UltraSPARC or IBM Power5+ processor and an IBMmainframe chip. The processor 810 is connected to other systemcomponents, including one or more memory devices 812, by the bus 814.

The memory 812 stores programs and data during operation of the computersystem 802. Thus, the memory 812 may be a relatively high performance,volatile, random access memory such as a dynamic random access memory(DRAM) or static memory (SRAM). However, the memory 812 may include anydevice for storing data, such as a disk drive or other non-volatilestorage device. Various examples may organize the memory 812 intoparticularized and, in some cases, unique structures to perform thefunctions disclosed herein. These data structures may be sized andorganized to store values for particular data and types of data.

Elements of the computer system 802 are coupled by an interconnectionelement such as the bus 814. The bus 814 may include one or morephysical busses, for example, busses between components that areintegrated within the same machine, but may include any communicationcoupling between system elements including specialized or standardcomputing bus technologies such as IDE, SCSI, PCI and InfiniBand. Thebus 814 enables communications, such as data and instructions, to beexchanged between system components of the computer system 802.

The computer system 802 also includes one or more interface devices 816such as input devices, output devices and combination input/outputdevices. Interface devices may receive input or provide output. Moreparticularly, output devices may render information for externalpresentation. Input devices may accept information from externalsources. Examples of interface devices include keyboards, mouse devices,trackpads, microphones, touch screens, printing devices, displayscreens, speakers, network interface cards, etc. Interface devices allowthe computer system 802 to exchange information and to communicate withexternal entities, such as users and other systems.

The data storage 818 includes a computer readable and writeablenonvolatile, or non-transitory, data storage medium in whichinstructions are stored that define a program or other object that isexecuted by the processor 810. The data storage 818 also may includeinformation that is recorded, on or in, the medium, and that isprocessed by the processor 810 during execution of the program. Morespecifically, the information may be stored in one or more datastructures specifically configured to conserve storage space or increasedata exchange performance.

The instructions stored in the data storage may be persistently storedas encoded signals, and the instructions may cause the processor 810 toperform any of the functions described herein. The medium may be, forexample, optical disk, magnetic disk or flash memory, among otheroptions. In operation, the processor 810 or some other controller causesdata to be read from the nonvolatile recording medium into anothermemory, such as the memory 812, that allows for faster access to theinformation by the processor 810 than does the storage medium includedin the data storage 818. The memory may be located in the data storage818 or in the memory 812; however, the processor 810 manipulates thedata within the memory, and then copies the data to the storage mediumassociated with the data storage 818 after processing is completed. Avariety of components may manage data movement between the storagemedium and other memory elements and examples are not limited toparticular data management components. Further, examples are not limitedto a particular memory system or data storage system.

Although the computer system 802 is shown by way of example as one typeof computer system upon which various aspects and functions may bepracticed, aspects and functions are not limited to being implemented onthe computer system 802 as shown in FIG. 8. Various aspects andfunctions may be practiced on one or more computers having differentarchitectures or components from those shown in FIG. 8. For instance,the computer system 802 may include specially programmed,special-purpose hardware, such as an application-specific integratedcircuit (ASIC) tailored to perform a particular operation disclosedherein, while another example may perform the same function using a gridof several specially configured computing devices running MAC OS SystemX with Motorola PowerPC processors and several specialized computingdevices running proprietary hardware and operating systems.

The computer system 802 may be a computer system including an operatingsystem that manages at least a portion of the hardware elements includedin the computer system 802. In some examples, a processor or controller,such as the processor 810, executes an operating system. Examples of aparticular operating system that may be executed include a Windows-basedoperating system, such as Windows NT, Windows 2000 (Windows ME), WindowsXP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7 or 8, available from the MicrosoftCorporation, a MAC OS System X operating system available from AppleComputer, one of many Linux-based operating system distributions, forexample, the Enterprise Linux operating system available from Red HatInc., a Solaris operating system available from Sun Microsystems, or aUNIX operating system available from various sources. Many otheroperating systems may be used, and examples are not limited to anyparticular operating system.

The processor 810 and operating system together define a computerplatform for which application programs in high-level programminglanguages are written. These component applications may be executable,intermediate, bytecode or interpreted code that communicates over acommunication network, for example, the Internet, using a communicationprotocol, for example, TCP/IP. Similarly, aspects may be implementedusing an object-oriented programming language, such as .Net, SmallTalk,Java, C++, Ada, C# (C-Sharp), Objective C, or Javascript. Otherobject-oriented programming languages may also be used. Alternatively,functional, scripting, or logical programming languages may be used.

Additionally, various aspects and functions may be implemented in anon-programmed environment, for example, documents created in HTML, XMLor other format that, when viewed in a window of a browser program, canrender aspects of a graphical-user interface or perform other functions.Further, various examples may be implemented as programmed ornon-programmed elements, or any combination thereof. For example, a webpage may be implemented using HTML while a data object called fromwithin the web page may be written in C++. Thus, the examples are notlimited to a specific programming language and any suitable programminglanguage could be used. Accordingly, the functional components disclosedherein may include a wide variety of elements (e.g., specializedhardware, executable code, data structures or data objects) that areconfigured to perform the functions described herein.

In some examples, the components disclosed herein may read parametersthat affect the functions performed by the components. These parametersmay be physically stored in any form of suitable memory includingvolatile memory (such as RAM) or nonvolatile memory (such as a magnetichard drive). In addition, the parameters may be logically stored in apropriety data structure (such as a database or file defined by a usermode application) or in a commonly shared data structure (such as anapplication registry that is defined by an operating system). Inaddition, some examples provide for both system and user interfaces thatallow external entities to modify the parameters and thereby configurethe behavior of the components.

Academics, policymakers and consumers themselves have long bemoaned thedisadvantage that consumers suffer as unsophisticated, one-shot playersin their interactions with large businesses. According to some aspects,the system's perpetually refining data model presents an unprecedentedopportunity to help level the playing field. Satisfied users can beinvited to endorse the software/system on social media. In certainembodiments, a money-back guarantee is available to users who fail toreceive a refund from their service above a particular threshold—such asthe purchase price of the software.

According to another aspect, the system provides tools to help consumerslevel the playing field between the pro se consumer and the behemoth shedoes business with. In some embodiments, the tools can be used by theconsumer for (1) identifying misconduct in the first place, (2) seekinginformal redress from the business, and (3) commencing and (4)prosecuting a civil action or ADR proceeding against the business.

Having thus described several aspects of at least one embodiment of thisinvention, it is to be appreciated various alterations, modifications,and improvements will readily occur to those skilled in the art. Suchalterations, modifications, and improvements are intended to be part ofthis disclosure, and are intended to be within the scope of theinvention. Accordingly, the foregoing description and drawings are byway of example only.

What is claimed is:
 1. A system comprising: at least one processoroperatively connected to a memory, the at least one processor whenrunning is configured to execute a plurality of system components,wherein the plurality of system components comprise: an interactive userinterface component configured to: display dispute information requests;display generation of a dispute communication in association with entryof responses to the dispute information requests; a generation componentconfigured to select at least one template associated with a businessidentified in user responses to the dispute information requests; and atransformation component configured to transform user input received inresponse to the dispute information requests into template fieldentries, the transformation component further configured to identify andexecute transformation rules on the user input responsive to theidentified business or identified dispute to generate the template fieldentries, wherein the transformation component is configured to: map afirst user input field into a first template field, wherein the firstuser input field specifies a problem type associated with the dispute;map a second user input field into a second template field, wherein thesecond user input field specifies a problem classified within theproblem type; wherein the generation component is further configured to:generate a dispute communication object from the selected template andthe template field entries; generate the dispute communication object toinclude electronic messaging fields associated with an electronicmessaging application; and trigger communication of the communicationobject to the business identified in the user responses.
 2. The systemaccording to claim 1, wherein the plurality of system components furthercomprises a communication component configured to analyze the user inputreceived in response to the dispute information requests to determinecommunication requirements for the dispute communication object.
 3. Thesystem according to claim 2, wherein the communication component isfurther configured to generate a physical letter responsive todetermining that the communication requirements specify physicalmailing.
 4. The system according to claim 3, wherein the communicationcomponent identifies a class of dispute based on analysis of the userinput that includes an unfair or deceptive business practices complaint,and generates the physical letter responsive to determining that thecommunication requirements derived from generally applicable law and/orcontract provisions.
 5. The system according to claim 4, wherein thecommunication component is configured to identify the applicablerequirement responsive to analyzing the user input received to identifyone of or combinations of a user location, a dispute location, or abusiness location.
 6. The system according to claim 5, wherein thecommunication component is configured to capture communicationrequirements for each match on the user location, dispute location, orthe business location and select either a most stringent set ofrequirements from the matches or create a merged set of requirementsthat meets the requirements of each match.
 7. The system according toclaim 1, wherein the interactive user interface component is configuredto display suggested categories associated with common problems thatdescribe the user's dispute.
 8. The system according to claim 1, whereinthe interactive user interface component dynamically selects or refinessuggested categories displayed responsive to matching user input to thedispute information requests.
 9. The system according to claim 1,wherein the generation component generates the dispute communicationobject as at least an electronic letter to the identified business. 10.The system according to claim 9, wherein the generation componentvalidates that the electronic letter meets the requirements specified bythe identified business for particular types of correspondence solicitedfrom the consumer by the business; and wherein the generation componentis further configured to validate the electronic letter against priorissues tracked for the business and any resolution associated with theprior issues.
 11. The system according to claim 1, wherein thecommunication component includes at least one application programminginterface (API) configured to access online tracking services of thepostal delivery service and validate delivery.
 12. The system accordingto claim 1, wherein the communication interface is configured to executea tracking API configured to: access an online tracking service; inputtracking information associated with the dispute communication object;and capture status information
 13. The system according to claim 1,further comprising a tracking component configured to: capture anyresponsive information received on a dispute request; associate theresponsive information with an indication of positive or negativeoutcome.
 14. The system according to claim 13, further comprising amodelling component configured to: extract keywords from the responsiveinformation and associate the keywords with the outcome.
 15. The systemof claim 13, wherein the modelling component is configured to:automatically execute analysis of outcome or success metrics, andgenerate models of dispute behavior or models of dispute outcomes. 16.The system of claim 15, wherein the modelling component analyzes acurrent user's dispute information, matches the dispute information to acommunication model or outcome model.
 17. The system of claim 16,wherein the modelling component identifies outcomes and models eachoutcome as a function of independent factors.
 18. The system of claim17, wherein the modelling component dynamically selects or refinestemplate formats responsive to modelling outcomes on historic data. 19.The system of claim 1, wherein the interactive user interface componentis further configured to generate: a first display screen configured torequest user input of a provider associated with a user dispute, whereinthe first display screen includes a plurality of visual selectionobjects, each respective object associated with a specific provider; asecond display screen configured to request user specification of aproblem associated with the provider identified in the first displayscreen, wherein the second display screen includes a plurality ofproblem selection objects organized by problem category; the pluralityof problem selection objects configured to store a state responsive touser selection; a third display screen configured to: tailor a displayof user input elements responsive to the selection state stored in aprior display screen, wherein the displayed user input elements areconfigured to accept user specification of valuation information; andtrigger calculation of a dispute value associated with the user'sdispute; and a fourth display screen configured to: accept user input ofaccount identifying information with the selected provider; and triggercommunication of a dispute communication object to the selectedprovider.
 20. A user interface displayed on a computer system, whereinthe user interface is rendered on a display of the computer system inresponse to execution of instructions on at least one processor of thecomputer system, the user interface comprising: a first display screenconfigured to request user input of a provider associated with a userdispute, wherein the first display screen includes a plurality of visualselection objects, each respective object associated with a specificprovider; a second display screen configured to request userspecification of a problem associated with the provider identified inthe first display screen, wherein the second display screen includes aplurality of problem selection objects organized by problem category;the plurality of problem selection objects configured to store a stateresponsive to user selection; a third display screen configured to:tailor a display of user input elements responsive to the selectionstate stored in a prior display screen, wherein the displayed user inputelements are configured to accept user specification of valuationinformation; and trigger calculation of a dispute value associated withthe user's dispute; and a fourth display screen configured to: acceptuser input of account identifying information with the selectedprovider; and trigger communication of a dispute communication object tothe selected provider based on user input provided in at least thefirst, second, third, and forth display screens.
 21. A systemcomprising: at least one processor operatively connected to a memory,the at least one processor when running is configured to execute aplurality of system components, wherein the plurality of systemcomponents comprise: an interactive user interface component configuredto: display dispute information requests; display generation of adispute communication in association with entry of responses to thedispute information requests; a generation component configured toselect at least one template associated with a business identified inuser responses to the dispute information requests; and a transformationcomponent configured to transform user input received in response to thedispute information requests into template field entries, thetransformation component further configured to identify and executetransformation rules on the user input responsive to the identifiedbusiness or identified dispute to generate the template field entries,wherein the transformation component is configured to execute a firstapplication programming interface (API) configured to: map a first userinput field into a first template field, wherein the first user inputfield specifies a problem type associated with the dispute; map a seconduser input field into a second template field, wherein the second userinput field specifies a problem classified within the problem type;wherein the generation component is further configured to generate adispute communication object from the selected template and the templatefield entries and output the dispute communication object, wherein thegeneration component is further configured to execute a second API togenerate the dispute communication object, wherein the second API isconfigured to: generate the dispute communication object to includeelectronic messaging fields for an electronic messaging application; andtrigger communication of the communication object to the businessidentified in the user responses.